Arkansas Department of Human Services v. April Ward and Minor Child

2026 Ark. 17

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: February 5, 2026
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. 17 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-25-758

Opinion Delivered: February 5, 2026

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES PETITIONER

V.

APRIL WARD AND MINOR CHILD RESPONDENTS ORDER OF REPRIMAND ISSUED.

PER CURIAM

On December 11, 2025, we issued a show-cause order for Dana McClain, an

attorney ad litem, to respond to our concerns that she filed a pleading with this court that

included case law and statutes generated by artificial intelligence. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs.

v. Ward, 2025 Ark. 217. During this court’s review of the expedited matter, we determined

that parts of McClain’s response contained citations, including a direct quote, to cases that

could not be located. We ordered McClain to respond to our concerns, provide any actual

case law, and explain the specifics of how this occurred. McClain responded and admitted

falling short of her professional obligations. We approve her self-imposed sanctions and issue

this order of reprimand.

McClain admitted using Microsoft Office Copilot for assistance. She specifically

entered questions like “can you provide case law to support this argument with citations from Arkansas dependency-neglect law” and “can you provide statutes and case law that

state this with citations.” She affirmed that she did not upload any sealed juvenile records.

McClain explained she intended to verify the accuracy of the citations but neglected to do

so due to extraordinary personal circumstances. McClain explained that “it was a regrettable

decision and lack of oversight made under significant personal strain.” She immediately

resigned from her position as an attorney ad litem and self-reported to our Office of

Professional Conduct.

We expect attorneys to make arguments “warranted by existing law or a good faith

argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” Ark. R. App. P. –

Civ. 11(a). We find that McClain, by her own admission, violated Rule 11. We have

explained that when a Rule 11 violation occurs, sanctions are mandatory. See Crockett &

Brown, P.A. v. Wilson, 321 Ark. 150, 154, 901 S.W.2d 826, 828 (1995).

We recognize that the expedited matter coincided with McClain’s genuine personal

hardships. Yet with the volume of appellate work in McClain’s past, she should have known

there were options such as not filing a response, seeking an extension, or asking other

counsel for assistance. We note McClain has twenty-five years of legal experience, and this

is the first instance in which this court has encountered her misjudgment. Yet her violations

of our rules concerning the use of AI were significant and avoidable in this case. Attorneys

should be aware that the court’s sanction is appropriate considering the specific remedial

actions taken voluntarily in this case and the fact that the harm was mitigated due to the

early discovery of the errors. Under different facts, attorneys should be aware that

2 consequences could be more severe, including but not limited to significant fines and

potentially a suspension or loss of the privilege to practice law in Arkansas.

We find that this written reprimand, McClain’s immediate resignation, and her self-

reporting to OPC constitute appropriate sanctions.

Order of reprimand issued.